Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Albert Pundt  wrote:

> I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation
> roles of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways),
> but what about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s
> Capital Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to
> east/west, but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where
> the Belts aren't signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW"
> (clockwise) and "CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does
> "forward" or some other role need to be used?
>

Always use forward/backward as the role if the member is a way.  Always use
a cardinal or clockwise/anticlockwise for the role on a route master when
the members are relations.  Trying to use anything other than
forward/backward on ways makes routes an extraordinary pain in the butt if
not unmaintainable.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles for two-way way segments carrying routes in a single direction

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Peter Dobratz  wrote:

> There's a bit of confusion around this and it took me quite a while
> playing around with the relation editor in JOSM ("Select Next Gap") to
> understand how the "forward" and "backward" roles work.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/RGV2XOX.png
>
> First, consider how you would create a road route relation for your
> example if the red segment didn't exist.  Also, for the moment ignore the
> signed cardinal directions of the route.  In that case, you would
> arbitrarily chose to start from the left-most or right-most segment in the
> picture.  If you chose to start with the right-most segment:
>
> right-most (role: "")
> blue (role: "")
> green (role: "")
> left-most (role: "")
>
> All of the roles would be empty and you would not need to use the roles
> "forward" or "backward".
>

Assuming you're in a situation that the route starts and ends on single
carriageway, or things get complicated on a level that the existing tools


> Now consider that the red segment exists and you need to indicate that the
> road route splits in two and then reconverges.  In this case, you would do
> the following, again starting at the right side of the picture:
>
> right-most (role: "")
> blue (role: "backward")
> green (role: "backward")
> red (role: "forward")
> left-most (role: "")
>
> You traverse the segments where the road splits first following the
> direction of the route and then backtracking to the point where the road
> splits and then start adding segments with empty roles.  If either blue,
> green, or red is reversed in direction, then they would need to have the
> role "backward" instead of "forward", but would still retain the same
> position in the list (by convention red should not be reversed since it has
> oneway=yes).
>

So far, so good.


> So now consider that you want to change the route to indicate "east" and
> "west" signed cardinal directions.
>
> One idea is to leave the roles as "forward" and "backward" and just add a
> direction=west tag on the relation object.
>
> One idea is that "east" and "west" become synonyms for "forward".  First,
> reverse the direction of blue and green and change their roles to
> "forward".  Then change the roles to "east" and "west":
>
> right-most (role: "")
> blue (role: "west")
> green (role: "west")
> red (role: "east")
> left-most (role: "")
>

This makes it nearly impossible, on a level for which a relation for a
relation traversing a state roughly the size of the ones in the American
west can take 12-16 hours of work for someone who is familiar with the
route in question AND working with large relations.  Please don't do this,
it breaks the editors.  And I don't mean the tools, I mean the actual
people editing.  It's extremely discouraging to be rocking along on an edit
only to come to a screeching halt just to end up spending the rest of the
weekend validating a relation.

Cardinal directions should only be used on roles for relation members that
are themselves relations.  Example:  You have a super relation for a very
long highway.  It contains two relations, one for each direction, so the
relation roles would be, say, east and west, or north and south, or
clockwise and counterclockwise, or (in very rare edge cases) east and
north... (I know of only one example of this, though I haven't bothered to
re-survey this since it changed highway number to see if the directions
changed).  The child relations would have ways as members that are all
contiguous with forward/backward as roles, all pointing in the direction of
travel.  This is about the only way to get a relation that validates and
isn't a completely impossible to maintain situation on JOSM (and it gets
even worse on id and potlatch!) on situations that end on a dual
carriageway (such as motorways crossing state lines).  You touched on this
further down...


> In this case, it is critical that blue and green are not reversed again.
>
>
> Another approach is to create separate route relations for each direction
> of the route.  In that case, you would have one relation with
> direction=east:
> left-most (role: "")
> red (role: "")
> right-most (role: "")
>
> And a separate relation with direction=west
> right-most (role: "")
> blue (role: "")
> green (role: "")
> left-most (role: "")
>
> In this case, it will also help to update the name tag of the relation to
> include "(East)" or "(West)" to more easily tell the route relations apart
> in the editor.  Also, the relations can be added to a route_master relation
> (type=route_master  route_master=road).
>


Overall, I think it is cleanest to create 2 route relations, 1 for each
> signed cardinal direction of the route.  You don't have to arbitrarily
> decide whether to start the route at the eastern or western terminus as
> each route relation has a natural starting point based on the signed
> cardinal direction.  You don't have to deal with roles on member Ways,
> which are very confusing.  You don't have to w

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles for two-way way segments carrying routes in a single direction

[Peter Dobratz]

There's a bit of confusion around this and it took me quite a while playing
around with the relation editor in JOSM ("Select Next Gap") to understand
how the "forward" and "backward" roles work.

https://i.imgur.com/RGV2XOX.png

First, consider how you would create a road route relation for your example
if the red segment didn't exist.  Also, for the moment ignore the signed
cardinal directions of the route.  In that case, you would arbitrarily
chose to start from the left-most or right-most segment in the picture.  If
you chose to start with the right-most segment:

right-most (role: "")
blue (role: "")
green (role: "")
left-most (role: "")

All of the roles would be empty and you would not need to use the roles
"forward" or "backward".

Now consider that the red segment exists and you need to indicate that the
road route splits in two and then reconverges.  In this case, you would do
the following, again starting at the right side of the picture:

right-most (role: "")
blue (role: "backward")
green (role: "backward")
red (role: "forward")
left-most (role: "")

You traverse the segments where the road splits first following the
direction of the route and then backtracking to the point where the road
splits and then start adding segments with empty roles.  If either blue,
green, or red is reversed in direction, then they would need to have the
role "backward" instead of "forward", but would still retain the same
position in the list (by convention red should not be reversed since it has
oneway=yes).


So now consider that you want to change the route to indicate "east" and
"west" signed cardinal directions.

One idea is to leave the roles as "forward" and "backward" and just add a
direction=west tag on the relation object.

One idea is that "east" and "west" become synonyms for "forward".  First,
reverse the direction of blue and green and change their roles to
"forward".  Then change the roles to "east" and "west":

right-most (role: "")
blue (role: "west")
green (role: "west")
red (role: "east")
left-most (role: "")

In this case, it is critical that blue and green are not reversed again.


Another approach is to create separate route relations for each direction
of the route.  In that case, you would have one relation with
direction=east:
left-most (role: "")
red (role: "")
right-most (role: "")

And a separate relation with direction=west
right-most (role: "")
blue (role: "")
green (role: "")
left-most (role: "")

In this case, it will also help to update the name tag of the relation to
include "(East)" or "(West)" to more easily tell the route relations apart
in the editor.  Also, the relations can be added to a route_master relation
(type=route_master  route_master=road).


Overall, I think it is cleanest to create 2 route relations, 1 for each
signed cardinal direction of the route.  You don't have to arbitrarily
decide whether to start the route at the eastern or western terminus as
each route relation has a natural starting point based on the signed
cardinal direction.  You don't have to deal with roles on member Ways,
which are very confusing.  You don't have to worry about the direction of
each member way either (again in practice many of them will be marked
oneway=yes and have the direction following the flow of traffic).


Note that whatever approach you chose, the route relations will often break
when the member Ways are split or combined.  Not all OSM editors do the
right thing to preserve the contiguousness of the route relations when
performing these operations.  When people decide to add lane or speed limit
information to the roads that make up the route, they may inadvertently
break the route relation.  In the rare case where multiple users are
concurrently splitting Ways that belong to the same route relation, the
relation usually breaks.

Peter

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Albert Pundt  wrote:

> So I understand that one-way ways carrying a route (e.g. a one-way pair or
> divided highway) should have relation roles of north/south/east/west, but
> say you have a situation like this . Say
> you have an east-west route that follows the primary roads in that picture.
> The eastbound direction follows the channelized right turn slip ramp,
> marked with a red arrow. The westbound direction follows the blue-arrow
> way, before turning left onto the green-arrow way.
>
> How should relation memberships and roles be assigned here? I would think
> that the slip ramp would be part of the relation, since right-turning
> traffic must follow it. Ideally, that would be given the role "east", but
> what about the green and blue ways? It might seem right to give them the
> role "west", but how then is it differentiated which direction is westbound
> for it? Since all the ways in this picture are arranged "pointing" north or
> east, the green and blue ways would need to be given the role "backward",
> which is the older way of doing things that can't specify cardinal

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)

[Tod Fitch]

Not sure about the beltway example, but I prefer having one relation for each 
direction of a highway and then a super relation to tie those two together. 
That avoids the issues you pointed out earlier where one direction may take a 
slip/link while the other direction does not. It also makes it easy to see, at 
least in JOSM relation editing, that all the segments link up properly. And 
finally, though probably not as important, allows one to mark each segment in 
the relation with “forward” which is universally understood by the whole tool 
chain while many have issues with members marked as “north”, “south”, etc.

I suppose one could handle the beltway example with a CW relation and a CCW 
relation, with all members being tagged as “forward”, and then a super relation 
to tie those to together. Signage with stuff like north/south on them could be 
handled with destination sign tagging.


> On Dec 26, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Albert Pundt  wrote:
> 
> I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles 
> of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what 
> about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital 
> Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to east/west, 
> but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where the Belts 
> aren't signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW" (clockwise) 
> and "CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does "forward" or 
> some other role need to be used?



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Relation roles: Clockwise and Counterclockwise route directions? (e.g. Pittsburgh's Belts)

[Albert Pundt]

I know that north/south/east/west directions are preferred for relation roles 
of one-way route segments (e.g. one-way pairs or divided highways), but what 
about clockwise and counterclockwise? Often beltways, like D.C.'s Capital 
Beltway, are signed such that they abruptly go from north/south to east/west, 
but then you have routes like Pittsburgh's Belt System, where the Belts aren't 
signed with directions at all. These seem to be given "CW" (clockwise) and 
"CCW" (counterclockwise) roles. Is this correct, or does "forward" or some 
other role need to be used?
--Roadsguy___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Relation roles for two-way way segments carrying routes in a single direction

[Albert Pundt]

So I understand that one-way ways carrying a route (e.g. a one-way pair or 
divided highway) should have relation roles of north/south/east/west, but say 
you have a situation like this. Say you have an east-west route that follows 
the primary roads in that picture. The eastbound direction follows the 
channelized right turn slip ramp, marked with a red arrow. The westbound 
direction follows the blue-arrow way, before turning left onto the green-arrow 
way.
How should relation memberships and roles be assigned here? I would think that 
the slip ramp would be part of the relation, since right-turning traffic must 
follow it. Ideally, that would be given the role "east", but what about the 
green and blue ways? It might seem right to give them the role "west", but how 
then is it differentiated which direction is westbound for it? Since all the 
ways in this picture are arranged "pointing" north or east, the green and blue 
ways would need to be given the role "backward", which is the older way of 
doing things that can't specify cardinal direction. Is replacing the single 
relation with separate relations for each direction the only good way to do 
this, or are such two-way segments the only times that "forward" and "backward" 
roles should be used?
I checked the wiki page, but it doesn't seem to specify. Instead, it just says 
such cases are very rare (which is only true relatively speaking, as routes 
very commonly turn at intersections with channelized right turns, making 
situations like the linked example very common.
--Roadsguy___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Adam Schreiber]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
> * Paul Johnson  [2011-06-29 14:52 -0700]:
>> On 06/29/2011 11:49 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
>> > My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
>> > what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
>> > forward and which is backward" question.
>>
>> One should hope the software can figure that out based on the overall
>> orientation of the relation.
>
> I would prefer directional roles, because you can't always determine the
> signed directions programmatically.  I've seen quite a few roads which
> could be either north/south or east/west depending on how and where you
> look at them.  I've also seen roads that predominantly go in a particular
> direction but which are signed the other way by the entity maintaining
> them.
>
> The tagging should match what the signs on the ground say.

I agree.  Not only can't the directionals always be easily determined,
unless one follows the odd/even convention (loop roads I495, I476.
etc. wouldn't be deterministic), foward/backward are redundant with
the oneway=yes tag and the way's direction.

Cheers,

Adam

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Chris Lawrence]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> One should hope the software can figure that out based on the overall
> orientation of the relation.  I'm in the forward/backward crowd myself,
> as it works well for routes that are only sometimes divided.  For routes
> that are always divided, rather than making it more difficult for the
> tools to work with, a super relation containing relations for each
> direction works well.

The problem is that there are routes that change directions (I-69, US
83 in south Texas) and even some that violate geography ("east" and
"west" on much of I-26 in East Tennessee are 180 degrees off, and
don't even make sense when you account for the 45 degree rotation of
routes in that area).

Having said that a relation for each direction, even for undivided
routes, is probably superior just simply because it allows turn
directions in navigation apps to be correct by reference to which
relation is in the direction of travel.  (e.g. if you're "backward" on
a way you can find the relations where the way has the backward role
and use those ones as the directional indicators).  That this also
helps the relation checkers and sorters (which could after all be
fixed to cope with directional roles - and sorting in JOSM copes to
some extent with directional roles already if all the ways are loaded)
is a bonus.


Chris

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Phil! Gold]

* Paul Johnson  [2011-06-29 14:52 -0700]:
> On 06/29/2011 11:49 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> > My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
> > what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
> > forward and which is backward" question.
> 
> One should hope the software can figure that out based on the overall
> orientation of the relation.

I would prefer directional roles, because you can't always determine the
signed directions programmatically.  I've seen quite a few roads which
could be either north/south or east/west depending on how and where you
look at them.  I've also seen roads that predominantly go in a particular
direction but which are signed the other way by the entity maintaining
them.

The tagging should match what the signs on the ground say.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
  "Where did you put it?"
  "Put what?"
  "You know."
  "Where do you think?"
  "Oh."
   -- Nicholas Negroponte of MIT Media Lab, stating
  his ideal model of human-computer interaction.
 --- --

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Paul Johnson]

On 06/29/2011 11:49 AM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
> what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
> forward and which is backward" question.

One should hope the software can figure that out based on the overall
orientation of the relation.  I'm in the forward/backward crowd myself,
as it works well for routes that are only sometimes divided.  For routes
that are always divided, rather than making it more difficult for the
tools to work with, a super relation containing relations for each
direction works well.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way away
and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
relation) and not bother with roles at all. It's simpler conceptually,
simpler for the newbie to edit, simpler to process. (If you wanted to, you
could then have a super-relation for the two relations, though personally I
wouldn't see the need.)


This is simpler for dual carriageways, but certainly not when the road 
is primarily single-carriageway.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 4:50 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

I've started using forward/backward roles rather than north/south/east/west
on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's relation editor supporting
sorting by them and Nakor's tool


Nakor's tool for ... ?  Link?


Formerly at http://toolserver.org/~nakor/relation.fcgi?relation= , and 
used to update 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakor/Interstate_relations_check 
and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakor/US_relations_check .



How much uproar would there be if I started changing to forward/backward
roles in conjunction with checking for completeness? Is there any benefit to
the slightly increased amount of information provided by the directional
roles? Are there any other solutions? It appears from
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109 that the JOSM devs are not
interested in supporting directional roles.


I'd expect that we need a much stronger argument in favour of removing
the additional information provided by the directional roles.  It is
dead simple to reverse the direction of a way and break your proposed
forward-role, while directional roles would be fine.


JOSM automatically changes forward to reverse if you reverse a way, and 
if Potlatch doesn't it would be simple to have it do so.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Josh Doe]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Toby Murray wrote:
> > I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on
> > IRC last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were
> > silly because he had no concept of a "north/south" vs "east/west"
> > highway.
>
> Probably not me, but you're right, and it's not a question we have to worry
> about in the UK anyway - we don't need highway route relations because any
> road only has one number.
>
> FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way
> away
> and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
> relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
> relation) and not bother with roles at all. It's simpler conceptually,
> simpler for the newbie to edit, simpler to process. (If you wanted to, you
> could then have a super-relation for the two relations, though personally I
> wouldn't see the need.)
>

I've been in favor of a single relation for both directions, however I think
I'm questioning that now.
* Where a road predominantly consists of dual carriageways (such as US
Interstates), I think there's no trouble using a single relation, and the
north/south/east/west roles for the appropriate members, however two
relations would be just fine with me as well.
* For roads that consist predominantly of single ways, with perhaps a few
divisions here and there such as near intersections, I think a single
relation makes the most sense, and forward/backward roles are fine if they
are helpful.
* For those roads which are more evenly split between being dual and single
carriageways, I think two relations might make more sense for reasons of
simplicity of editing.

-Josh
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Richard Fairhurst]

Toby Murray wrote:
> I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on 
> IRC last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were 
> silly because he had no concept of a "north/south" vs "east/west" 
> highway.

Probably not me, but you're right, and it's not a question we have to worry
about in the UK anyway - we don't need highway route relations because any
road only has one number.

FWIW, and you should absolutely not listen to me because I'm a long way away
and it's up to you guys to sort yourselves out... but I'd create a separate
relation for each direction (i.e. one northbound relation, one southbound
relation) and not bother with roles at all. It's simpler conceptually,
simpler for the newbie to edit, simpler to process. (If you wanted to, you
could then have a super-relation for the two relations, though personally I
wouldn't see the need.)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Relation-roles-tp6530016p6530697.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I've started using forward/backward roles rather than north/south/east/west
> on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's relation editor supporting
> sorting by them and Nakor's tool

Nakor's tool for ... ?  Link?

> (which was already less convenient, given
> that you had to upload to OSM and get the relation number) being down. I've
> been leaving U.S. Highways alone (Interstates don't matter either way
> because they're almost always dual carriageway), but this means that there's
> no way to check for completeness of a relation.
>
> How much uproar would there be if I started changing to forward/backward
> roles in conjunction with checking for completeness? Is there any benefit to
> the slightly increased amount of information provided by the directional
> roles? Are there any other solutions? It appears from
> http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109 that the JOSM devs are not
> interested in supporting directional roles.

I'd expect that we need a much stronger argument in favour of removing
the additional information provided by the directional roles.  It is
dead simple to reverse the direction of a way and break your proposed
forward-role, while directional roles would be fine.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 3:47 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

For bike/bus routes that makes sense since they may go against the
directionality of the way. For highway routes this doesn't seem to
make sense and as Josh pointed out is just duplicating oneway
information whereas the signed direction of the highway provides new
information.


Except for cases where a highway is signed only one way on a two-way 
street. I have come across a few so-called one-way pairs where both 
streets are two-way. To determine which way the route goes you need to 
download the entire relation and see which end is east or north of the 
other.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Toby Murray]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 6/29/2011 3:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II > > wrote:
>>
>>    On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
>>
>>        It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
>>        forward and which is backward" question.
>>
>>    Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both
>>    directions of the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).
>>
>>
>> I'm a little slow here; forward means the route follows the direction of
>> the way (order of nodes), so for dual carriageways if the ways are in:
>> * opposite directions: they would both have oneway=yes and both use the
>> forward role?
>> * same direction: one would have oneway=yes and the forward role, the
>> other with oneway=-1 and the backward role? I find it a little
>> confusing...
>
> Yes. This is the standard for bus and bike routes, as well as highway routes
> in most countries. JOSM makes it easy to sort a relation this way.

For bike/bus routes that makes sense since they may go against the
directionality of the way. For highway routes this doesn't seem to
make sense and as Josh pointed out is just duplicating oneway
information whereas the signed direction of the highway provides new
information.

I mentioned something about cardinal direction relation roles on IRC
last night and I think it was RichardF thought they were silly because
he had no concept of a "north/south" vs "east/west" highway. I guess
this is yet another thing that is unique to US highways. I suspect
most JOSM developers are the same way so that ticket just doesn't
register as relevant to them. I'm guessing a patch might be accepted
though :)

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 3:28 PM, Josh Doe wrote:

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.

Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both
directions of the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).


I'm a little slow here; forward means the route follows the direction of
the way (order of nodes), so for dual carriageways if the ways are in:
* opposite directions: they would both have oneway=yes and both use the
forward role?
* same direction: one would have oneway=yes and the forward role, the
other with oneway=-1 and the backward role? I find it a little confusing...


Yes. This is the standard for bus and bike routes, as well as highway 
routes in most countries. JOSM makes it easy to sort a relation this way.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[James Umbanhowar]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 03:05:26 PM Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> > My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
> > what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
> > forward and which is backward" question.
> 
> How would you suggest ensuring that relations are and remain complete?
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

One kluge is that you could use search and replace to change all south/north 
east/west to forward/backward, do the relation check and then change back.  

My instinct would be having the signed direction on the relation role would be 
preferable.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Josh Doe]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
>
>> It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
>> forward and which is backward" question.
>>
> Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both directions of
> the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).


I'm a little slow here; forward means the route follows the direction of the
way (order of nodes), so for dual carriageways if the ways are in:
* opposite directions: they would both have oneway=yes and both use the
forward role?
* same direction: one would have oneway=yes and the forward role, the other
with oneway=-1 and the backward role? I find it a little confusing...

-Josh
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.
Forward is the direction of the way. If a way carries both directions of 
the route, it gets no role (as with directional roles).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 6/29/2011 2:49 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match
what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is
forward and which is backward" question.


How would you suggest ensuring that relations are and remain complete?

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Mills]

My personal preference is to use directional roles so that they match 
what is written on signage. It also avoids the inevitable "which way is 
forward and which is backward" question.


On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:44:45 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

I've started using forward/backward roles rather than
north/south/east/west on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's
relation editor supporting sorting by them and Nakor's tool (which 
was

already less convenient, given that you had to upload to OSM and get
the relation number) being down. I've been leaving U.S. Highways 
alone

(Interstates don't matter either way because they're almost always
dual carriageway), but this means that there's no way to check for
completeness of a relation.

How much uproar would there be if I started changing to
forward/backward roles in conjunction with checking for completeness?
Is there any benefit to the slightly increased amount of information
provided by the directional roles? Are there any other solutions? It
appears from http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109 that the JOSM
devs are not interested in supporting directional roles.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Relation roles

[Nathan Edgars II]

I've started using forward/backward roles rather than 
north/south/east/west on relations for state highways, due to JOSM's 
relation editor supporting sorting by them and Nakor's tool (which was 
already less convenient, given that you had to upload to OSM and get the 
relation number) being down. I've been leaving U.S. Highways alone 
(Interstates don't matter either way because they're almost always dual 
carriageway), but this means that there's no way to check for 
completeness of a relation.


How much uproar would there be if I started changing to forward/backward 
roles in conjunction with checking for completeness? Is there any 
benefit to the slightly increased amount of information provided by the 
directional roles? Are there any other solutions? It appears from 
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109 that the JOSM devs are not 
interested in supporting directional roles.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us